That Liberals invent every day of the week for the benefit of their mothballed pansy-transy flimsy-whimsy World Order.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This scene could over-border into perversion in 2-ways: 1.by being sex filmed[loser-checkmark]; or, 2.by being subject to the circulation of photographs of the scene outside the cinema screening-room that fetishize the exposure itself. This scene, like her abrupt turn-and-abandon on the street in front of the restaurant when Oppenheimer notices his colleague coming out(which distracts him from the non-seriousness of her 'conversation') reveals her character as radically libertine, one that fetishizes the seeming reality of things as what they are as revealed to be serious for the sake of proving a situation is what it looks like as what it should be for being what one thinks they would imagine such a situation to expose itself as to be a 'reality'(as such). That is also the point of her character arc with respect to Oppenheimer and his wife, who, herself, finds it impossible to look beyond the seeming sexually implicated seriousness of her imaginings of what this 'character' would have to have been for Oppenheimer to have taken an interest in her at all, in any way shape or form.

Superficially describing the scene (now above, actually) is: the reading of the Arab text, and the indication of precisely this above-described mode of romanticized intellectualism the SCENE! does!!!!! look, but that! belies itself as precisely this describ ed fine-line between what is real and what is not w/libertine-women-romanticals(because on, the one hand: I Am! pretending to be a super hot slut(ergo, simply an ACT!,literally); and, on the other, the ABSOLUTELY ORDINARY*, of Marxistical stripe (i.e., that*!/\YOU do`NEED TO IMPRESS WITH YOUR SMARTS, bitch, to make it Real, for me, which makes it REAL::::for you, loser boy). In this case, *assuming 1. above (that the scene IS actually filmed-sex!) would, then, be justifiable access and representational certitude of portrayal of something that cannot be contrived by a simple act of an actor). this, though::::: would, obviously! implicate any viewer in the discomfort of being cast across the line of viewing an intimate scene from THEIR LIFES(in thrall and, as such, into a cast of voyeuristic perversivity, which is not actually a phenomenon in any way specific to this tiny slice of a film-image cinemascape, but, rather, pervades society in its absolute hypocrisy with respect to what it is privately as transgression of the entreaties made over-boldly publicly but that justify themselves by the thin veneer of 'publicism'!(i.e., It looks like a pornoACT)that 'protects' what they offer one knowingly for private consumption(as masturbation ;-); or fodder for libtard normalization).